I managed to read Sue-Ann Chia's article in today's Straits Times, titled 'What place does civil disobedience have in Singapore?' In it, she attempts to argue that civil disobedience has no place in Singapore. I use 'attempt', because all I see are fragments of arguments.
Civil disobedience is the act of peacefully disobeying a specific law, in the hopes that it would be amended or abolished, and so benefit the people in the name of justice. Justice, in this case, means equal treatment to all people, regardless of personal factors that are irrelevant and/or out of their control. By doing so, the innnocent would be protected, the guilty punished in proportion to his crime, the future criminal deterred, and the good rewarded.
Chia said that she is 'not advocating civil disobedience'. She argues there is no need for civil disobedience because a new government could be voted in. In addition, civil disobedience could mark the start of a slippery slope towards anarchy. Finally, civil disobedients in Singapore do not have much support amongst Singaporeans. These three 'arguments' fail to demonstrate that civil disobedience has no place in Singapore, not because of their incoherence, but also because they are fundamentally flawed.
Chia's overarching argument is that civil disobedience 'defeat(s) the purpose of having democratic elections'. This argument presupposes that there are, in fact, democratic elections . This is hardly the case.
'Democratic elections' presupposes that elections are free and fair, with no political parties receiving inherent advantages or disadvantages. With respect to Singapore, the existence of Group Representative Constituencies distort democracy, by enforcing homogenisation at the expense of minorities, as Yawning Bread has shown. Goh Chok Tong himself has admitted that GRCs were established primarily to allow junior Members of Parliament or candidates to be assisted by more experienced ones -- in other words, to let junior candidates piggyback on the success of their seniors. In doing so, the People's Action Party puts more MPs on its bench than the opposition parties, because the Opposition is smaller, and possesses fewer skilled and popular candidates and less resources, and so is forced to fight an uphill battle in every GRC. The media plays up coverage of PAP events, and relatively little attention to Opposition rallies. Simply counting the number of articles and estimating the length of each article covering each party will reveal the media's lopsidedness. This, in of itself, throws the concept of democratic elections in Singapore into question. I will state that elections in Singapore are not democratic, in the spirit of the word.
Even if the issue does not cover Singapore, and assuming that elections in Singapore were democratic, what about non-democratic countries? The fall of communism in Poland and East Germany, and later the whole of the Union of Societ Socialist Republics, was not brought about by peaceful democratic elections. As History students will tell you, there was a confluence of factors, most notably peaceful demonstrations on the streets of Eastern Europe. The protests mobilised the former Soviet citizens into taking action against the regime, by giving them a chance to participate directly in politics for the first time in generations. The dictatorial communist governments were felled by civil disobedients, not the ballot box, because elections, had they existed, were rigged to favour the Communist Party. Chia has failed to consider this case, weakening her argument.
Because elections in Singapore are not democratic, and that not every country is democratic, the underlying assumption underpinning Chia's argument has fallen, and with it, her entire case. We cannot simply re-elect another government if we so happen to disagree with some of the laws it chooses to enforce, because the system tilts the odds in the government's favour. Coupled with opposition parties that are too small to possess real power in Singapore's political arena in the near future, and the fate of every foreseeable election is sealed. Consequently, the unjust law remains on the books in the indefinite future.
Even assuming that democratic elections exist in Singapore, Chia's argument still falls. The assumption that underpins her argument is composed of two sub-beliefs: the new government would be perfectly willing to change the law, and that the issue at hand can wait until polling day.
The law in question could be a political hot potato, perhaps something along the scale of Singapore's Section 377A, in which case the new government would not touch it of its own accord, lest it loses votes. Chia believes that, just because the government refuses to change an unjust law, the opposition would naturally call for its change in order to win public support. That is not true. The Worker's Party, for instance, has remained ambivalent on Section 377A even during the height of the debate on it. If the Opposition refuses to change the law, even if it means a chance of being voted into power, then argument by election will fail.
That is even assuming that the issue can wait until the next election, because a law or ruling could well harm the country for a long period of time. Consider, for example, the American war in Iraq: if the war were unjustified, it would make more sense to stop the killing now, instead of waiting for a thousand, or even a hundred, casualties between now and voting day. When time is of the essence, then people have to act decisively, without undue delay. Civil disobedience is the ultimate impetus against a slow-moving or unmoving government, because it reminds the government that it is representative of the people, and draws its power from the people. Should the democratic government lose the support of its people, as broadcast through civil disobedience, then it will not be the government in the future. It is this impetus that prods bureaucrats and politicians into action.
Chia highlights the argument that civil disobedience is the start of a slippery slope towards anarchy. But this is a very poor understanding of 'anarchy' and 'civil disobedience'.
The whole notion of civil disobedience is to peacefully disobey a law to make a statement, in order to effect a change in law and so better align the current legal system with the principles of justice. It is, in effect, the people talking to the government with a loudhailer turned to the highest volume. Anarchy, on the other hand, means an absence of government. Civil disobedience is based on respect for the ruling power, so much so that civil disobedients would not resist arrest, trial, or punishment. Anarchy, however, views all governments as essentially harmful, as they take away human freedom. It is that respect that bars civil disobedience from degenerating into anarchy. It is not impossible to embody, as Martin Luther King and Gandi have demonstrated. Dr. Chee Soon Juan and his fellow demonstrators, in fact, have never resisted arrest when the police showed up. Anarchists would prefer to resist arrest, because the police is viewed as an extension of the State, and thus as something to be resisted and eventually destroyed. It is this divergence of ideology, demarcated by the notion of respect, that stops civil disobedience from becoming a slippery slope towards anarchy.
If anything else, civil disobedience is designed to promote the cause of justice. Wong Kan Seng has disingenuously said that civil disobedience 'does violence to the rule of law'. But that is because the rule of law has failed, and the existing system refuses to change it. From its perspective, there is no point in expending time and resources to change a law that people do not pay attention to, because it would merely divert attention from other issues, or could help ensure that the system stays in power. Consider the example that Chia has raised: the black civil rights movement. Following the election of 1876, a series of laws were passed, suppressing the rights of African Americans. Collectively known as the Jim Crow laws, they legalised racial discrimination, exploited minority races, and disenfranchised most African Americans. The system was henceforth maintained by white voters and white Presidents, with the latter needing the former to either enter or remain in office, even if they were racists. Blacks and other minority races had no legal means of combating such an entrenched system; they had to act against the law in the name of justice. Civil disobedience thus provides a powerful avenue to mobilise a disenfrancished population, and to channel them into taking constructive action.
The essentials of Chia's second argument is that civil disobedience undermines the rule of law. But the law must adhere to the principles of natural justice. When the law fails, it must die. For it to live on is a smear on the justice system, for the principles of natural justice are not upheld. When the government refuses to admit justice into the legal system of its own accord, it is the perogative of the people to embody the sword of justice, and cut down anything that hinders the progression and execution of justice. If it entails violence against the law, then so be it: laws can be re-written, but justice cannot.
Chia's last argument is painfully ludicrous. She states that civil disobedients must be 'good judges' of the 'right circumstances' and 'causes (that) will take off'. In Singapore, Chee Soon Juan and the Singapore Democratic Party, the most prominent civil disobedients in Singapore, have failed to accurately judge the proper conditions for the use of civil disobedience. Therefore, it is implied, civil disobedience has no place here.
Civil disobedience is a controversial, high-stakes political tactic with its time and place. Just because the Chees and the SDP have failed to show adequate judgment, in Chia's opinion, does not show that civil disobedience has no place in Singapore. It simply means that the conditions do not yet exist, so anyone seriously considering civil disobedience must first realise these conditions -- if at all possible. Just because civil disobedience may have no place now does not show that it will never have a place in Singapore.
The principle behind civil disobedience is that breaking the law in a peaceful, physically non-violent way would eventually lead to a great deal of social good. This good is expressed in the modification of the existing system, so that it would treat people more fairly, no longer act against the people's conscience, or otherwise rectify an existing wrong. The case against civil disobedience must demonstrate that civil disobedience will do more harm than good.
Chia's contribution to this: civil disobedience violates the principle of democratic elections, and could lead to anarchy. But as I have already mentioned, when the electoral system has failed, when the Opposition refuses to change the law even if it were the next government, or if the issue is time-sensitive, there exists a case for civil disobedience, either to minimise and prevent existing and future harm, or to right a wrong. Furthermore, the principle of respect stands between civil disobedience and the slippery slope to anarchy, reducing the ability for civil disobedience to do more harm than necessary. Therefore, Chia has failed to make the case against civil disobedience.
When justice is insulted by the law, civil disobedience is a powerful tool to erase that smear, as it provides an impetus for governments to act and gives an avenue for frustrated and repressed citizens to act. In my opinion, it should not be used when legal ways are sufficient, such as a letter-writing or petition campaign, because of the higher costs a civil disobedience campaign entails. To draw an analogy, it is akin to using a machete to cut a loaf of bread. You can do that, but why bother when a bread knife is at hand? This is especially so since you might accidentally damage your tabletop. On the other hand, if you need to hack through a thick jungle, a machete is infinitely superior to a bread knife. Like every tool, civil disobedience has a time and place. If one wishes to discard it, one must prove that it is harmful, outdated, or otherwise inefficient. It should not be discarded on faulty arguments alone.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Book Launch
As requested by the Amoeba Republic:
You may, or may not, have heard about the Pick-Me-Up Book , which was first launched in January this year. The book is a collection of true stories of how people managed to overcome their dire circumstances and strife to turn their dreams into reality despite facing long odds. Aptly, the Make-A-Wish Foundation is the beneficiary to this good cause. The organisation's aim is to provide unconditional support to underprivileged children in turning their dreams into reality. 60% of the nett proceeds will be donated to the foundation, while the remaining 40% will be used to set up a social enterprise.
The book has also since been featured in local media and received some notable endorsements by several MPs. It has since been distributed to good bookstores around the island.
BUT ... Given the resounding response thus far, a second edition of the book will be launched at the World Book Fair this weekend!!! The upcoming launch will include both an English and a Mandarin version of the book.
Also, the highlight of this edition is the story by Charmaine Tan, a 13-year-old wish-child from Make-A-Wish Foundation who is suffering from end-stage kidney failure, on top of a congenital eye disease which has led to her being visually-impaired today. Her wish is to become a published author.
The good news is that her wish is about to be granted this coming weekend!
Details of the Book Launch are as follows:-
Book Launch - Pick-Me-Up Book (Edition 2)
Date: 31/05/2008 (Saturday)
Time: 3pm to 5pm
Venue: World Book Fair, Suntec City Convention Centre Level 4 (Booth 4EO1)
It will be wonderful if you could spread the word on your blog, or even attend the launch yourself, to make the granting of Charmaine's wish of becoming a published author a memorable one. Charmaine and her mother will be invited up on stage during the book launch to share her experiences of writing the book, and she will also be having her first autograph session then!
Do support the book by purchasing a copy (or better still, more than one) at the launch!
For more information, you may visit http://pickmeupbook.org/blog/pick-me-up-2nd-edition-launch-at-the-world-book-fair/.
Thank you for your support!
As a writer and a reader, I am skeptical. I have and will never read, much less buy, a book unless it's worth it. This means a high standard of writing, a dedication to the craft of writing, and that the book revolves around themes that I have an interest in. I've learnt the hard way that this is achieved through practice, research, revision, dedication, preserverence, and a healthy dose of experience. By these standards alone, I find it difficult to imagine that a thirteen-year-old can meet my standards of writing, especially in a country where the art of writing is debased by English teachers -- at least, the teachers I've known. But as a human being, I am quietly glad that this little girl achieved a dream that I've harboured for six years, and counting. She is a testimony to the resilience of the human spirit, and an example for all the writers and people out there, with secret dreams that only perserverance and courage can nourish, and realise.
You may, or may not, have heard about the Pick-Me-Up Book , which was first launched in January this year. The book is a collection of true stories of how people managed to overcome their dire circumstances and strife to turn their dreams into reality despite facing long odds. Aptly, the Make-A-Wish Foundation is the beneficiary to this good cause. The organisation's aim is to provide unconditional support to underprivileged children in turning their dreams into reality. 60% of the nett proceeds will be donated to the foundation, while the remaining 40% will be used to set up a social enterprise.
The book has also since been featured in local media and received some notable endorsements by several MPs. It has since been distributed to good bookstores around the island.
BUT ... Given the resounding response thus far, a second edition of the book will be launched at the World Book Fair this weekend!!! The upcoming launch will include both an English and a Mandarin version of the book.
Also, the highlight of this edition is the story by Charmaine Tan, a 13-year-old wish-child from Make-A-Wish Foundation who is suffering from end-stage kidney failure, on top of a congenital eye disease which has led to her being visually-impaired today. Her wish is to become a published author.
The good news is that her wish is about to be granted this coming weekend!
Details of the Book Launch are as follows:-
Book Launch - Pick-Me-Up Book (Edition 2)
Date: 31/05/2008 (Saturday)
Time: 3pm to 5pm
Venue: World Book Fair, Suntec City Convention Centre Level 4 (Booth 4EO1)
It will be wonderful if you could spread the word on your blog, or even attend the launch yourself, to make the granting of Charmaine's wish of becoming a published author a memorable one. Charmaine and her mother will be invited up on stage during the book launch to share her experiences of writing the book, and she will also be having her first autograph session then!
Do support the book by purchasing a copy (or better still, more than one) at the launch!
For more information, you may visit http://pickmeupbook.org/blog/pick-me-up-2nd-edition-launch-at-the-world-book-fair/.
Thank you for your support!
As a writer and a reader, I am skeptical. I have and will never read, much less buy, a book unless it's worth it. This means a high standard of writing, a dedication to the craft of writing, and that the book revolves around themes that I have an interest in. I've learnt the hard way that this is achieved through practice, research, revision, dedication, preserverence, and a healthy dose of experience. By these standards alone, I find it difficult to imagine that a thirteen-year-old can meet my standards of writing, especially in a country where the art of writing is debased by English teachers -- at least, the teachers I've known. But as a human being, I am quietly glad that this little girl achieved a dream that I've harboured for six years, and counting. She is a testimony to the resilience of the human spirit, and an example for all the writers and people out there, with secret dreams that only perserverance and courage can nourish, and realise.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Responsibilities and Regulations
"In discussing media policy, some caricature the choices as a debate between those who understand the need for regulation and those who want a free-for-all. This is a false debate. The real issue is what kind of regulation can allow us, as individuals and as a society, to harness the benefits of free speech while minimising the harm that such speech can cause."
Opening line of the proposal to deregulate the Internet
The essence of communication is two-way dialogue. This demands that both parties make the effort to listen to and understand each other, instead of just shooting their mouths off and sealing their ears with plugs cast from the mould of self-righteousness. It is the recognition, and execution, of this responsibility that underpines democratic discussion: problems would be solved, resources shared, and opposing perspectives reconciled, because everyone understands where each side is coming from, and is interested in a common objective. It is with great regret, therefore, that I must say that the writer of this letter has failed to do so.
Mok's essential argument that the Group of 13, as the bloggers behind the Internet de-regulation proposal has been labelled, must demonstrate our "good faith by setting forth the responsibilities that accompany liberties." By this, he means that we should propose and/or maintain a mechanism to regulate the Internet, to ensure that rights are exercised responsibly.
We did. Read the quote.
The full text of our proposal is readily available online. In essence, though, while we are calling for most laws regarding freedom of speech to be abolished, we recognise that there must be some measure of regulation to protect the public good. This regulation comes in three forms.
The first is through clear, narrowly-tailored statutes and prosecution. We believe that the current media regulations are very vague. For example, it is illegal to distribute films unless they have been approved by the Board of Censors. But, this means that any home video you produce to upload on YouTube, for example, is illegal, unless you have somehow submitted it to the Board and received approval from it. It is also highly difficult to prosecute you should you decide to upload your videos without approval, because it is nearly impossible to prove that you had actually committed this illegal act once you go online. The vagueness of current regulations means that any decision to take action is based solely on administrative discretion. But, this leaves people wondering whether or not they have committed a crime (like uploading a home video on YouTube). This, in turn, would chill actual speech and expression, because the average citizen, not knowing whether or not he will commit a crime by doing something, would prefer to do nothing. That is the only guarantee he has of not running afoul of the vaguely-worded law.
By having clear, narrow laws, we would be able to resolve this situation. For example, suppose that Parliament passes a law saying that all films that are to be screened in cinemas must be submitted to the Board of Censors for approval. So, it is no longer a crime to upload home videos on YouTube -- or videos with political messages, for that matter. With no disincentive against action, the people would then be able to express themselves more freely, allowing them to harness the power of the Internet.
In addition, we are advocating the principle of 'prosecute or nothing'. Yawning Bread has written at length about this. Suffice to say, we believe that the current system is inadequate. It allows the Media Development Authority to impose arbitrary fines, enforce vague policies at will, leave no course for defence and appeal, and causes some laws to overlap with administrative rules. By clarifying the system, and adopting this principle, we would replace all the MDA's policies with laws set in stone, to be run through the justice system. Offenders would have full rights of legal defence and appeal, the government would have the opportunity to explain how and why someone had broken the law in a public court, and the grey area of administrative discretion would be eliminated. This, we believe, would better serve the cause of justice than the current system.
The second form of regulation is to make all existing laws platform-neutral. By this, we mean that Singapore should pass a comprehensive series of laws governing the full spectrum of media, instead of having one set of laws for films, another for books and magazines, and so on. This way, we avoid having a schizophrenic regulatory regime. Consider that, by law, 'party political films' like Singapore Rebel are banned. But this ban is becoming increasingly relevant, as these films can be watched on YouTube or downloaded elsewhere. In the process of harmonising laws, we are calling for the most transparent and liberal procedures as possible to be set as the industry standard, so as to encourage people to exercise their freedom of speech. Do note that having one set of laws is a world apart from having no laws at all. It is something that Mok has failed to notice.
The third form of regulation is community moderation. We believe that almost all of society's legitimate concerns about the abuse of free speech can be addressed through informal means. Bloggers, for example, can choose to delete derogatory and defamatory comments. YouTube has a code of regulations forbidding explicit content. Internet forums are almost always moderated. These measures, by themselves, would mean that most objectionable material would be eliminated before they even hit the screen. We also proposed the formation of an Internet Content Consultative Committee, which would offer recommendations should controversies arise, such as when conflict arises between the state and allegedly irresponsible content providors. In this manner, we need not expend the courts' and government's time and resources to deal with irresponsible behaviour, and capitalise on the Internet community's ability to self-regulate.
We proposed all this in recognition of the responsibilities that accompany rights. All of us, in our brainstorming sessions, agreed that we had to find a compromise between maximising rights and minimising abuse. We have not proposed that the courts should do away with laws concerning, say, injurious remarks on race and religion. What we have proposed is that Parliament pass laws that more clearly define what 'injurious remarks' mean, in order to better protect the people. Is it a crime should a South Indian insult a North Indian? The law is unclear on that; and that is why we need to improve it.
There is nothing that Mok has raised that we have not addressed. He says that with rights comes responsibilities. We agree. He implies that we need to keep some regulations. We did; we are simply streamlining the system. There is a difference between having fewer and better laws, and no laws at all; and the group has stood by the former position. Mok has failed to recognise this. I would even suggest that Mok has not read the proposal in its entirety, or taken the time to absorb its full implications, without further evidence. Extrapolation? Maybe. But, unlike Mok, I have justification.
Opening line of the proposal to deregulate the Internet
The essence of communication is two-way dialogue. This demands that both parties make the effort to listen to and understand each other, instead of just shooting their mouths off and sealing their ears with plugs cast from the mould of self-righteousness. It is the recognition, and execution, of this responsibility that underpines democratic discussion: problems would be solved, resources shared, and opposing perspectives reconciled, because everyone understands where each side is coming from, and is interested in a common objective. It is with great regret, therefore, that I must say that the writer of this letter has failed to do so.
Mok's essential argument that the Group of 13, as the bloggers behind the Internet de-regulation proposal has been labelled, must demonstrate our "good faith by setting forth the responsibilities that accompany liberties." By this, he means that we should propose and/or maintain a mechanism to regulate the Internet, to ensure that rights are exercised responsibly.
We did. Read the quote.
The full text of our proposal is readily available online. In essence, though, while we are calling for most laws regarding freedom of speech to be abolished, we recognise that there must be some measure of regulation to protect the public good. This regulation comes in three forms.
The first is through clear, narrowly-tailored statutes and prosecution. We believe that the current media regulations are very vague. For example, it is illegal to distribute films unless they have been approved by the Board of Censors. But, this means that any home video you produce to upload on YouTube, for example, is illegal, unless you have somehow submitted it to the Board and received approval from it. It is also highly difficult to prosecute you should you decide to upload your videos without approval, because it is nearly impossible to prove that you had actually committed this illegal act once you go online. The vagueness of current regulations means that any decision to take action is based solely on administrative discretion. But, this leaves people wondering whether or not they have committed a crime (like uploading a home video on YouTube). This, in turn, would chill actual speech and expression, because the average citizen, not knowing whether or not he will commit a crime by doing something, would prefer to do nothing. That is the only guarantee he has of not running afoul of the vaguely-worded law.
By having clear, narrow laws, we would be able to resolve this situation. For example, suppose that Parliament passes a law saying that all films that are to be screened in cinemas must be submitted to the Board of Censors for approval. So, it is no longer a crime to upload home videos on YouTube -- or videos with political messages, for that matter. With no disincentive against action, the people would then be able to express themselves more freely, allowing them to harness the power of the Internet.
In addition, we are advocating the principle of 'prosecute or nothing'. Yawning Bread has written at length about this. Suffice to say, we believe that the current system is inadequate. It allows the Media Development Authority to impose arbitrary fines, enforce vague policies at will, leave no course for defence and appeal, and causes some laws to overlap with administrative rules. By clarifying the system, and adopting this principle, we would replace all the MDA's policies with laws set in stone, to be run through the justice system. Offenders would have full rights of legal defence and appeal, the government would have the opportunity to explain how and why someone had broken the law in a public court, and the grey area of administrative discretion would be eliminated. This, we believe, would better serve the cause of justice than the current system.
The second form of regulation is to make all existing laws platform-neutral. By this, we mean that Singapore should pass a comprehensive series of laws governing the full spectrum of media, instead of having one set of laws for films, another for books and magazines, and so on. This way, we avoid having a schizophrenic regulatory regime. Consider that, by law, 'party political films' like Singapore Rebel are banned. But this ban is becoming increasingly relevant, as these films can be watched on YouTube or downloaded elsewhere. In the process of harmonising laws, we are calling for the most transparent and liberal procedures as possible to be set as the industry standard, so as to encourage people to exercise their freedom of speech. Do note that having one set of laws is a world apart from having no laws at all. It is something that Mok has failed to notice.
The third form of regulation is community moderation. We believe that almost all of society's legitimate concerns about the abuse of free speech can be addressed through informal means. Bloggers, for example, can choose to delete derogatory and defamatory comments. YouTube has a code of regulations forbidding explicit content. Internet forums are almost always moderated. These measures, by themselves, would mean that most objectionable material would be eliminated before they even hit the screen. We also proposed the formation of an Internet Content Consultative Committee, which would offer recommendations should controversies arise, such as when conflict arises between the state and allegedly irresponsible content providors. In this manner, we need not expend the courts' and government's time and resources to deal with irresponsible behaviour, and capitalise on the Internet community's ability to self-regulate.
We proposed all this in recognition of the responsibilities that accompany rights. All of us, in our brainstorming sessions, agreed that we had to find a compromise between maximising rights and minimising abuse. We have not proposed that the courts should do away with laws concerning, say, injurious remarks on race and religion. What we have proposed is that Parliament pass laws that more clearly define what 'injurious remarks' mean, in order to better protect the people. Is it a crime should a South Indian insult a North Indian? The law is unclear on that; and that is why we need to improve it.
There is nothing that Mok has raised that we have not addressed. He says that with rights comes responsibilities. We agree. He implies that we need to keep some regulations. We did; we are simply streamlining the system. There is a difference between having fewer and better laws, and no laws at all; and the group has stood by the former position. Mok has failed to recognise this. I would even suggest that Mok has not read the proposal in its entirety, or taken the time to absorb its full implications, without further evidence. Extrapolation? Maybe. But, unlike Mok, I have justification.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Free the Internet
The proposal for Internet deregulation is finally up. Here is the URL. We're going to need all the support we can get, so please look the proposal over and e-mail us your comments. The e-mail addresses are in the previous post. With your help, we would be able to gain a greater voice in the public stage. Do your part, and free the Internet.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Bloggers propose changes to media regulation
Since December of 2007, I have been working with a group of bloggers on a set of regulations pertaining to the Internet. It would be submitted as an open letter to the Minister of Information, Communications and the Arts. The following is the official press release.
MEDIA RELEASE
For immediate release
By Choo Zheng Xi and Alex Au
18 April 2008
Bloggers’ group proposes sweeping changes in Internet regulation
A group of committed bloggers will submit recommendations to the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts within the next few days, on the subject of Internet regulation. This open letter, which will be released to the public at the same time, will call for sweeping changes to bring Singapore in line with international norms and the reality of the new technology.
Its key proposals include:
1. All regulation of speech should be platform-neutral, given the steady convergence of various platforms as a result of the digital revolution. There should not be different rules for different media.
2. Platform-neutral regulations should be harmonised to be as minimal as the current freest platform, if not even freer.
3. What rules there need to be should be narrowly tailored and should serve clear social purposes.
4. Rules should take the form of unambiguous laws, and in extremis, violators prosecuted, rather than take the form of licensing, bureaucratic discretion and administrative penalties as currently is the case. The various licensing schemes and the Media Development Authority’s powers to fine and ban should be dismantled.
5. Shielding a government from criticism is not a legitimate social purpose. Restraining political content is unjustified in principle and unrealistic in practice, and the attempt to do so impairs Singapore’s maturity as a nation.
6. The group notes that there are plenty of laws that need to be amended or repealed to give effect to the recommendations, such as the Broadcasting Act, the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Films Act. As this may take time, the group proposes that in the interim, there could be an Internet Freedom Act that sets out clear guarantees for Internet freedom, over-riding the multiple (and sometimes conflicting) restrictions in all these other laws, regulations and codes of practice.
7. The group advocates a much bigger role for community moderation and in fact sees an ongoing trend wherein site owners themselves ensure a responsible use of their digital space. To further this process, the group suggests that an Internet Community Consultative Committee (IC3) be set up comprising one-third independent content providers, one-third persons familiar with rapidly evolving digital technologies, and one-third regular consumers of Internet content (i.e. regular surfers). They should not have any legal powers, but serve as a regular meeting point for citizens concerned with the free and responsible use of digital media.
8. Controversies relating to Internet speech should as far as possible be resolved via community moderation. Only when public safety is at serious risk should the law and prosecution be invoked.
The group of 15 persons was led by Choo Zheng Xi from The Online Citizen and Alex Au of Yawning Bread, and started work in December last year.
Alex Au says, “The government often posits freedom and responsibility as trade-offs. We disagree. It is the exercise of freedom that nurtures a sense of responsibility, so if we want Singapore’s digital space to be mature and responsible, we must give it the freedom to grow.”
Choo Zheng Xi says, “Internet technology is borderless and every day, people learn new ways of getting around our petty rules. The trend is towards the unenforceability of MDA’s rules. In the long run, it will damage the credibility of the law to have all sorts of meaningless rules that are unrealistic and largely seen as illegitimate. It is urgent that we trim the thicket.”
Alex Au says, “The technology is such that as things stand, individual bloggers find it easy to ignore the rules; they are not going to be deterred by them. The people who are going to be deterred are those considering making a significant investment whether in film, online or other expression. The arbitrariness of administrative control and the absence of clear avenues of appeal to independent courts of law, provide no legal certainty. The present system is perverse, contradicting our aim of being a vibrant media hub.”
For more details,
Choo Zheng Xi, remy_choo@hotmail.com
Alex Au Waipang, yawning_bread@yahoo.com
With any luck, I may even have Internet access when the paper is released, in time to direct you to the paper. But I'm keeping my fingers crossed. If I can't, I believe that Alex Au (alias Yawning Bread) and The Online Citizen would have the links. In any event, I believe that this would be a milestone in local politics; only time will tell how this would go.
MEDIA RELEASE
For immediate release
By Choo Zheng Xi and Alex Au
18 April 2008
Bloggers’ group proposes sweeping changes in Internet regulation
A group of committed bloggers will submit recommendations to the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts within the next few days, on the subject of Internet regulation. This open letter, which will be released to the public at the same time, will call for sweeping changes to bring Singapore in line with international norms and the reality of the new technology.
Its key proposals include:
1. All regulation of speech should be platform-neutral, given the steady convergence of various platforms as a result of the digital revolution. There should not be different rules for different media.
2. Platform-neutral regulations should be harmonised to be as minimal as the current freest platform, if not even freer.
3. What rules there need to be should be narrowly tailored and should serve clear social purposes.
4. Rules should take the form of unambiguous laws, and in extremis, violators prosecuted, rather than take the form of licensing, bureaucratic discretion and administrative penalties as currently is the case. The various licensing schemes and the Media Development Authority’s powers to fine and ban should be dismantled.
5. Shielding a government from criticism is not a legitimate social purpose. Restraining political content is unjustified in principle and unrealistic in practice, and the attempt to do so impairs Singapore’s maturity as a nation.
6. The group notes that there are plenty of laws that need to be amended or repealed to give effect to the recommendations, such as the Broadcasting Act, the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Films Act. As this may take time, the group proposes that in the interim, there could be an Internet Freedom Act that sets out clear guarantees for Internet freedom, over-riding the multiple (and sometimes conflicting) restrictions in all these other laws, regulations and codes of practice.
7. The group advocates a much bigger role for community moderation and in fact sees an ongoing trend wherein site owners themselves ensure a responsible use of their digital space. To further this process, the group suggests that an Internet Community Consultative Committee (IC3) be set up comprising one-third independent content providers, one-third persons familiar with rapidly evolving digital technologies, and one-third regular consumers of Internet content (i.e. regular surfers). They should not have any legal powers, but serve as a regular meeting point for citizens concerned with the free and responsible use of digital media.
8. Controversies relating to Internet speech should as far as possible be resolved via community moderation. Only when public safety is at serious risk should the law and prosecution be invoked.
The group of 15 persons was led by Choo Zheng Xi from The Online Citizen and Alex Au of Yawning Bread, and started work in December last year.
Alex Au says, “The government often posits freedom and responsibility as trade-offs. We disagree. It is the exercise of freedom that nurtures a sense of responsibility, so if we want Singapore’s digital space to be mature and responsible, we must give it the freedom to grow.”
Choo Zheng Xi says, “Internet technology is borderless and every day, people learn new ways of getting around our petty rules. The trend is towards the unenforceability of MDA’s rules. In the long run, it will damage the credibility of the law to have all sorts of meaningless rules that are unrealistic and largely seen as illegitimate. It is urgent that we trim the thicket.”
Alex Au says, “The technology is such that as things stand, individual bloggers find it easy to ignore the rules; they are not going to be deterred by them. The people who are going to be deterred are those considering making a significant investment whether in film, online or other expression. The arbitrariness of administrative control and the absence of clear avenues of appeal to independent courts of law, provide no legal certainty. The present system is perverse, contradicting our aim of being a vibrant media hub.”
For more details,
Choo Zheng Xi, remy_choo@hotmail.com
Alex Au Waipang, yawning_bread@yahoo.com
With any luck, I may even have Internet access when the paper is released, in time to direct you to the paper. But I'm keeping my fingers crossed. If I can't, I believe that Alex Au (alias Yawning Bread) and The Online Citizen would have the links. In any event, I believe that this would be a milestone in local politics; only time will tell how this would go.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Thoughts on Tibet, China and the Olympics
International relations, politics, sports, nationalism, and human rights seem an unlikely mix. Yet that is what we see in Tibet and China. With people calling for an end to protests against the Olympic flame, for a separation of sports and politics, it is easy to forget that the very reason Beijing wished to host the Olympics was political: China wanted a symbol to demonstrate its ascendency, and that symbol was the Olympic Games.
The 2008 Olympics was bound to be the most politicised of all the Olympic Games in recent memory. Analysts had already predicted that China's dream of hosting the Olympics was based on a desire for global recognition. But the darker history of China would inevitably rise into the light, fighting for a voice even as the government proclaims the greater glory of the people. It could have been many things: cross-strait relations with Taiwan, the East Turkestan independence movement, or in this case, Tibet. The Tibetan people have lived and suffered under Chinese rule for too long: rising standards of living, economic growth, Han assimilation and tight control have failed to reign in a desire for greater degrees of autonomy, and perhaps even freedom. This underlying desire, coupled with means and manpower, would propel pro-Tibet activists to steal the Olympic spotlight from China, in a bid to demonstrate to the world the will of the people.
The Chinese have reponded with the moves of a textbook autocrat: send in the riot police, enforce a media blackout, close ranks, and circle the wagons. When the media was finally allowed to cover the situation, it did so from a pro-China perspective, emphasising the grievances of the local Han people (and therefore, Beijing) while ignoring the Tibetan perspective. Nationalist propaganda, through speeches, editorials and articles, have primed the most visible Chinese against everybody Beijing deems a threat: the Dalai Lama, 'splittists', and the West. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said that the protests should be stopped because they incite anger amongst the Chinese youth; what he has failed to consider is the sheer amount of nationalist propaganda they are fed trough the state-controlled media, and the censorship of news from Tibet. Words like 'monsters', 'wolf in monk's robes' and 'life-and-death' struggle are bandied about in the press, describing the enemies of the state (read: Buddhist monks and the Dalai Lama) and the situation in Tibet (and against the world). The Chinese people have failed to see the propaganda in their media, and the lack of balanced coverage, and instead swallowed everything the state propaganda machine fed them. The end result is a manufactured anger that burns as fiery comments in forums and websites. Lee Hsien Loong has failed to see this -- as had many of the loudest voices against the protests.
We cannot kowtow to China. The fundamental issue is that the people of Tibet feel that they cannot live under the current system imposed by the Chinese. While Tibet may have lived under China for a long period of time, and that this has been recognised for a long period of time, the people of Tibet cannot stand for it anymore. Drawing parallels to southeastern America, that the former Mexican states there are recognised as part of America, is irrelevant, because the people living there have accepted federal rule. The people of Tibet have spoken through their protests around the world. Calling for them to separate sports from politics is irrelevant; the Chinese have already beaten them to it, and the Communist Party has more blood on its collective hands than the Tibetan people. The world must face this issue, and take action.
The first step should be to leave the protestors alone. They are speaking truth to power, against all odds. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of choice, and freedom from fear are far more important than the Olympics. As history will attest, the first four have direct impact on the lives of people; the last is just the icing on the cake. At the same time, the demonstrators need to demonstrate some discipline: they cannot and must not let their protests degenerate into violence and bloodshed. Should that happen, their cause would surely be undermined through the state-driven Chinese press. Their objective is to raise awareness and to apply pressure, nothing more. Their job is perhaps the toughest of all, for they must reign in their emotions and resist provocation in a highly-charged atmosphere. Their actions will paint the portrait of the Tibetan independence movement for posterity; let it not be remembered as having taken up a bloodied, indiscriminate blade.
The next step should be to let the people of China realise what is going on. We need to get information from Tibet to the people of China, and let them understand what, exactly, is happening in Tibet. It is highly unlikely that the government's efforts to censor the news and fire up the people will cease any time soon, yet the consequences of not countering these efforts would be an imprisoned Tibet. This injection of information should ideally occur through the medium of the Internet, because of its borderless and open nature. Websites, online petitions, documentaries, and the sort should be posted online, detailing the life of Tibetans under Chinese rule. The objective of this exercise is to get the Chinese people thinking, to get them to understand that there is more to the issue than what they have been fed.
After that, the Chinese government must engage in talks with the Dalai Lama, and perhaps leaders from the pro-independence movement. The leaders of China must recognise that they can no longer hold on to Tibet in its present situation. Even if the movement were defeated in the near future, it would return to haunt them later. Beijing must address the root of the issue, by exploring ways and means to grant Tibetans a greater measure of freedom, and to listen to the wishes of the Tibetan people, instead of plastering over everything and hoping that things would remain the same. The end result need not be an independent Tibetan state; I am fairly confident that most people would be satisfied with the extension of the 'one country, two systems' policy to Tibet, so long as Beijing stops oppressing the people. On one hand, it would ensure that Tibet remains a part of China, thereby satisfying Beijing. On the other, it would give Tibetans the freedom to live as they would want to live.
Naturally, this would not happen by itself. It is up to the world community to pressure China to engage the Tibetans. In our increasingly connected world, it is becoming a moral imperative to act on behalf of those who cannot. No longer can governments choose to not take action, because there are no fundamental differences between the humans who make up these governments, and the humans who have been oppressed. Letting economics trump humanity, as Singapore's government has done, would be repaid in the future in many ways: disapproval from trading partners, disapproval from citizens, greater political discontent, and so on. While this issue, by itself, would not have a great effect on local politics, it would nevertheless give more ammunition to dissidents and activists over here, and around the world.
We need to set our priorities straight. Shall we settle for propaganda, or take the time to dig for the truth? Do we want peace by the truncheon, or a voice for the voiceless? Shall we have an uninterrupted Olympics, or the dignity of an oppressed people? Dare we let things remain the same, or have the courage to change?
The 2008 Olympics was bound to be the most politicised of all the Olympic Games in recent memory. Analysts had already predicted that China's dream of hosting the Olympics was based on a desire for global recognition. But the darker history of China would inevitably rise into the light, fighting for a voice even as the government proclaims the greater glory of the people. It could have been many things: cross-strait relations with Taiwan, the East Turkestan independence movement, or in this case, Tibet. The Tibetan people have lived and suffered under Chinese rule for too long: rising standards of living, economic growth, Han assimilation and tight control have failed to reign in a desire for greater degrees of autonomy, and perhaps even freedom. This underlying desire, coupled with means and manpower, would propel pro-Tibet activists to steal the Olympic spotlight from China, in a bid to demonstrate to the world the will of the people.
The Chinese have reponded with the moves of a textbook autocrat: send in the riot police, enforce a media blackout, close ranks, and circle the wagons. When the media was finally allowed to cover the situation, it did so from a pro-China perspective, emphasising the grievances of the local Han people (and therefore, Beijing) while ignoring the Tibetan perspective. Nationalist propaganda, through speeches, editorials and articles, have primed the most visible Chinese against everybody Beijing deems a threat: the Dalai Lama, 'splittists', and the West. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said that the protests should be stopped because they incite anger amongst the Chinese youth; what he has failed to consider is the sheer amount of nationalist propaganda they are fed trough the state-controlled media, and the censorship of news from Tibet. Words like 'monsters', 'wolf in monk's robes' and 'life-and-death' struggle are bandied about in the press, describing the enemies of the state (read: Buddhist monks and the Dalai Lama) and the situation in Tibet (and against the world). The Chinese people have failed to see the propaganda in their media, and the lack of balanced coverage, and instead swallowed everything the state propaganda machine fed them. The end result is a manufactured anger that burns as fiery comments in forums and websites. Lee Hsien Loong has failed to see this -- as had many of the loudest voices against the protests.
We cannot kowtow to China. The fundamental issue is that the people of Tibet feel that they cannot live under the current system imposed by the Chinese. While Tibet may have lived under China for a long period of time, and that this has been recognised for a long period of time, the people of Tibet cannot stand for it anymore. Drawing parallels to southeastern America, that the former Mexican states there are recognised as part of America, is irrelevant, because the people living there have accepted federal rule. The people of Tibet have spoken through their protests around the world. Calling for them to separate sports from politics is irrelevant; the Chinese have already beaten them to it, and the Communist Party has more blood on its collective hands than the Tibetan people. The world must face this issue, and take action.
The first step should be to leave the protestors alone. They are speaking truth to power, against all odds. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of choice, and freedom from fear are far more important than the Olympics. As history will attest, the first four have direct impact on the lives of people; the last is just the icing on the cake. At the same time, the demonstrators need to demonstrate some discipline: they cannot and must not let their protests degenerate into violence and bloodshed. Should that happen, their cause would surely be undermined through the state-driven Chinese press. Their objective is to raise awareness and to apply pressure, nothing more. Their job is perhaps the toughest of all, for they must reign in their emotions and resist provocation in a highly-charged atmosphere. Their actions will paint the portrait of the Tibetan independence movement for posterity; let it not be remembered as having taken up a bloodied, indiscriminate blade.
The next step should be to let the people of China realise what is going on. We need to get information from Tibet to the people of China, and let them understand what, exactly, is happening in Tibet. It is highly unlikely that the government's efforts to censor the news and fire up the people will cease any time soon, yet the consequences of not countering these efforts would be an imprisoned Tibet. This injection of information should ideally occur through the medium of the Internet, because of its borderless and open nature. Websites, online petitions, documentaries, and the sort should be posted online, detailing the life of Tibetans under Chinese rule. The objective of this exercise is to get the Chinese people thinking, to get them to understand that there is more to the issue than what they have been fed.
After that, the Chinese government must engage in talks with the Dalai Lama, and perhaps leaders from the pro-independence movement. The leaders of China must recognise that they can no longer hold on to Tibet in its present situation. Even if the movement were defeated in the near future, it would return to haunt them later. Beijing must address the root of the issue, by exploring ways and means to grant Tibetans a greater measure of freedom, and to listen to the wishes of the Tibetan people, instead of plastering over everything and hoping that things would remain the same. The end result need not be an independent Tibetan state; I am fairly confident that most people would be satisfied with the extension of the 'one country, two systems' policy to Tibet, so long as Beijing stops oppressing the people. On one hand, it would ensure that Tibet remains a part of China, thereby satisfying Beijing. On the other, it would give Tibetans the freedom to live as they would want to live.
Naturally, this would not happen by itself. It is up to the world community to pressure China to engage the Tibetans. In our increasingly connected world, it is becoming a moral imperative to act on behalf of those who cannot. No longer can governments choose to not take action, because there are no fundamental differences between the humans who make up these governments, and the humans who have been oppressed. Letting economics trump humanity, as Singapore's government has done, would be repaid in the future in many ways: disapproval from trading partners, disapproval from citizens, greater political discontent, and so on. While this issue, by itself, would not have a great effect on local politics, it would nevertheless give more ammunition to dissidents and activists over here, and around the world.
We need to set our priorities straight. Shall we settle for propaganda, or take the time to dig for the truth? Do we want peace by the truncheon, or a voice for the voiceless? Shall we have an uninterrupted Olympics, or the dignity of an oppressed people? Dare we let things remain the same, or have the courage to change?
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Spirals and Mirrors: The Birth and Growth of Extremist Terror
Extremism is a monster sneering at a funhouse mirror, trying to scare its distorted reflection by slaughtering random passers-by, while simultaneously frightened of its warped image. Other bystanders break out the big guns, and then break down into squabbling factions that cannot decide on what to do next. That, at least, is what I have inferred after watching Geert Wilder's Fitna and observing the international response to it.
Fitna represents a kind of extremism: the extreme position of Islam justifying violence against non-believers at all times. Islamism is another kind of extremism: any and all means are sanctioned in the pursuit of converting the world to Islam. Both sides are best known for the bitter vitriolic they spew at each other, disregarding calls by third parties for calm, propelled by the belief that they are definitely right, and the other is definitely wrong. In the physical world, the former position is characterised by the deliberate burning of a mosque and the random beating of a Muslim; the latter a suicide blast and a deliberate decapitation. Both positions are uncannily similar, and manifest as mirror images of each other. In fact, Fitna, without the condemnation of Islam, could pass off as Islamist propaganda. As each side glare at each other, their proponents raise the ante, preparing ever more caustic rhetoric and building even more powerful bombs. The distorted mirror warps even more, allowing each other to see only what they want to see: even more proof that one side is morally right, and the other so wrong that it deserves eternal punishment.
This is how extremist terrorism develops. A small band of extremists gather to make their views on the world known, claiming that they are from a particular race, religion, or social class. A small group of people process this perspective, and take it as the viewpoint of the entire community; in this case, Wilder's belief that Islam is a violent, ruthless religion. This group then fires a volley of countercharges, painting that community in the worst possible light. Inspired by the opposing side's views and actions, both sides become bolder and more outspoken. Tensions grow and tempers flare, best seen through the demonstrations outside the Dutch embassy following the release of Fitna. The target audience splits, inching or dashing towards either side's positions. A variety of factors, ranging from media coverage, education, foreign and domestic policies, and anything else concerning the issue at hand influences the speed at which this happens. But it is an almost inevitable process.
As the opposing sides grow, they seek to make their voices known on a larger scale, through bombs and bullets. Each drop of spilled blood is another drop of fuel for the other side, stoking wildfires that threaten to engulf the community in a sea of hatred, suspicion, mistrust, and fear. The entire community need not be significantly influenced by either side; all it takes is a tiny percentage of society to take up either cause. Consider the Troubles in Northern Ireland, with the country torn in a three-sided low-intensity conflict between the Irish nationalists, Ulster loyalists, and British and Irish security forces. The first side claimed sovereignty on the basis of Catholicism, the second swore allegiance to the British crown by virtue of being Protestant, and the third were called in to stop a war. The last only succeeded after thirty years of blood, shed mostly by the people of Northern Ireland. Until the 1998 Good Friday agreement, Northern Irelanders had to live with the fear of car bombs and drive-bys, breeding an atmosphere of fear and mistrust. The modern history of Ireland, in fact, begun with the first few extremists who decided to speak through gunfire and propaganda.
Confronting extremism and terrorism is one of the main challenges our era has to face. It is also a very complex one, which has to be addressed through several, often overlapping areas. These areas go beyond my fields of expertise. But a general approach to the problem ought to undergo three stages: short-term, medium-term, and long-term.
In the short term, we must do everything in our power to frustrate the extremists from carrying out physical acts of violence, pretty much akin to repulsing the monster's claws as they attempt to pluck a victim. This would naturally mean training and empowering local security forces, a greater deal of international cooperation, calls for people to be more vigilant, and actively monitoring and liquidating cells of terrorists as they emerge. At this stage, there is little we can do to dissuade the extremists from carrying out their plans, short of physically stopping them, especially when the ticking time bombs have been set. At the same time, we must recognise that all we are doing is hacking away at the branches of evil, and that each severed branch breeds another. Extremist terrorists would be highly motivated, and so would not be deterred by news that their brothers-in-arms have been captured or killed; at most, they would simply lie low and wait for a calmer time to resume operations, and perhaps even recruit more people. They might even capitulate on mistakes by overzealous security personnel to aid their cause; Israel's attempts at 'focused foiling' using Hellfire missiles have led to many civilian casualties, a fact that Palestinian terrorists use to demonstrate Israel's brutality and the justness of their cause. This phase is, perhaps, the most visible and dramatised aspect of counterextremist work, because of its shadowed glamour. It is also a highly vital one, preventing the loss of untold thousands of lives and millions of dollars. But it is not enough.
The medium-phase goal should be to break down the walls of ignorance separating communities. To use the parable of the monster, it is to unite the factions of bystanders, and to get them to come to a common agreement. For this to happen, there must be communication at many levels. Information is the bridge between the diverse groups of peoples in the world, cemented by acceptance and reinforced by reason. At the individual level, it involves accepting people of different faiths and/or opinions as part of the community. At the societal and national level, there should be an active effort to connect every group, be they founded on faith or secular reasons, to every other similar group, to allow communication to occur. Religious leaders, in our day and age, have a special responsibility to understand other faiths and preach the creed of acceptance and diversity. On the global level, nation should speak peace unto nation, striving towards common consensus and understanding. At the same time, teachers should teach their charges how to think for themselves and how to do so properly, in order to differentiate fact from fiction, discourse from propaganda. This information allows people to recognise that extremist viewpoints only represent one small, usually insignificant, part of a larger group of people who share a similar belief, such as Islam. This recognition would effectively poison the tree of evil, slowing or halting the growth of terrorist cells, as people recognise the nature of extremism and build a basis to tackle it together.
The long-term goal is to slay the monster of extremism. This, again, takes place at several levels. First, the active extremists, who are involved in planning or executing terrorist attacks, and the leaders of the extremist movements, must be sought out and flushed out. As the organisation is destabilised, other measures come in. Extremism is itself a symptom of an underlying disease; destroying one terrorist group would only spawn another with a similar cause, as seen in the rise of Jamaah Islamiyah after the end of Darul Islam and Komando Jihad. Extremism is ultimately a set of ideology spawned by a set of inferences drawn from observed events. Islamist propagandists can take advantage of widespread poverty by blaming a target group and then offering amelioration and vengeance through a perverted Quran. These same propagandists can also capitalise on a person's spiritual journey in a non-spiritual world, by offering hollow advice that turns the target towards the desired path. The truth does not matter to the individual; only what the person sees is true. To eliminate extremism at the source, we must target the root causes of extremism. It could mean drawing up social welfare programs, reviewing foreign and local policies, or simply correcting false perceptions through providing accurate information. Counterideological work would be especially crucial in the shadow of al-Qaeda, as Muslim scholars strive to expose the flaws in Islamist propaganda to prevent people from being led astray. Once the roots of extremism have been identified, the boil of terror can be safely lanced and treated.
Attempting to expose extremism by replying with its twisted reproduction would only encourage further conflict. Confronting extremism requires a concerted, sustained effort by the world community. It must first recognise extremism for what it is: a group that represents the fringes of a body that has adopted a set of umbrella beliefs. Then, the peoples of the world must cooperate and communicate with each other, building cornerstones of trust and acceptance. With this cooperation, the cause of extremism can be properly determined and addressed. Without the cause, the extremists have lost their justifications, and their ideology collapses. Perhaps, one day, we shall see the end of the War on Terror. But it must begin from the heart.
Fitna represents a kind of extremism: the extreme position of Islam justifying violence against non-believers at all times. Islamism is another kind of extremism: any and all means are sanctioned in the pursuit of converting the world to Islam. Both sides are best known for the bitter vitriolic they spew at each other, disregarding calls by third parties for calm, propelled by the belief that they are definitely right, and the other is definitely wrong. In the physical world, the former position is characterised by the deliberate burning of a mosque and the random beating of a Muslim; the latter a suicide blast and a deliberate decapitation. Both positions are uncannily similar, and manifest as mirror images of each other. In fact, Fitna, without the condemnation of Islam, could pass off as Islamist propaganda. As each side glare at each other, their proponents raise the ante, preparing ever more caustic rhetoric and building even more powerful bombs. The distorted mirror warps even more, allowing each other to see only what they want to see: even more proof that one side is morally right, and the other so wrong that it deserves eternal punishment.
This is how extremist terrorism develops. A small band of extremists gather to make their views on the world known, claiming that they are from a particular race, religion, or social class. A small group of people process this perspective, and take it as the viewpoint of the entire community; in this case, Wilder's belief that Islam is a violent, ruthless religion. This group then fires a volley of countercharges, painting that community in the worst possible light. Inspired by the opposing side's views and actions, both sides become bolder and more outspoken. Tensions grow and tempers flare, best seen through the demonstrations outside the Dutch embassy following the release of Fitna. The target audience splits, inching or dashing towards either side's positions. A variety of factors, ranging from media coverage, education, foreign and domestic policies, and anything else concerning the issue at hand influences the speed at which this happens. But it is an almost inevitable process.
As the opposing sides grow, they seek to make their voices known on a larger scale, through bombs and bullets. Each drop of spilled blood is another drop of fuel for the other side, stoking wildfires that threaten to engulf the community in a sea of hatred, suspicion, mistrust, and fear. The entire community need not be significantly influenced by either side; all it takes is a tiny percentage of society to take up either cause. Consider the Troubles in Northern Ireland, with the country torn in a three-sided low-intensity conflict between the Irish nationalists, Ulster loyalists, and British and Irish security forces. The first side claimed sovereignty on the basis of Catholicism, the second swore allegiance to the British crown by virtue of being Protestant, and the third were called in to stop a war. The last only succeeded after thirty years of blood, shed mostly by the people of Northern Ireland. Until the 1998 Good Friday agreement, Northern Irelanders had to live with the fear of car bombs and drive-bys, breeding an atmosphere of fear and mistrust. The modern history of Ireland, in fact, begun with the first few extremists who decided to speak through gunfire and propaganda.
Confronting extremism and terrorism is one of the main challenges our era has to face. It is also a very complex one, which has to be addressed through several, often overlapping areas. These areas go beyond my fields of expertise. But a general approach to the problem ought to undergo three stages: short-term, medium-term, and long-term.
In the short term, we must do everything in our power to frustrate the extremists from carrying out physical acts of violence, pretty much akin to repulsing the monster's claws as they attempt to pluck a victim. This would naturally mean training and empowering local security forces, a greater deal of international cooperation, calls for people to be more vigilant, and actively monitoring and liquidating cells of terrorists as they emerge. At this stage, there is little we can do to dissuade the extremists from carrying out their plans, short of physically stopping them, especially when the ticking time bombs have been set. At the same time, we must recognise that all we are doing is hacking away at the branches of evil, and that each severed branch breeds another. Extremist terrorists would be highly motivated, and so would not be deterred by news that their brothers-in-arms have been captured or killed; at most, they would simply lie low and wait for a calmer time to resume operations, and perhaps even recruit more people. They might even capitulate on mistakes by overzealous security personnel to aid their cause; Israel's attempts at 'focused foiling' using Hellfire missiles have led to many civilian casualties, a fact that Palestinian terrorists use to demonstrate Israel's brutality and the justness of their cause. This phase is, perhaps, the most visible and dramatised aspect of counterextremist work, because of its shadowed glamour. It is also a highly vital one, preventing the loss of untold thousands of lives and millions of dollars. But it is not enough.
The medium-phase goal should be to break down the walls of ignorance separating communities. To use the parable of the monster, it is to unite the factions of bystanders, and to get them to come to a common agreement. For this to happen, there must be communication at many levels. Information is the bridge between the diverse groups of peoples in the world, cemented by acceptance and reinforced by reason. At the individual level, it involves accepting people of different faiths and/or opinions as part of the community. At the societal and national level, there should be an active effort to connect every group, be they founded on faith or secular reasons, to every other similar group, to allow communication to occur. Religious leaders, in our day and age, have a special responsibility to understand other faiths and preach the creed of acceptance and diversity. On the global level, nation should speak peace unto nation, striving towards common consensus and understanding. At the same time, teachers should teach their charges how to think for themselves and how to do so properly, in order to differentiate fact from fiction, discourse from propaganda. This information allows people to recognise that extremist viewpoints only represent one small, usually insignificant, part of a larger group of people who share a similar belief, such as Islam. This recognition would effectively poison the tree of evil, slowing or halting the growth of terrorist cells, as people recognise the nature of extremism and build a basis to tackle it together.
The long-term goal is to slay the monster of extremism. This, again, takes place at several levels. First, the active extremists, who are involved in planning or executing terrorist attacks, and the leaders of the extremist movements, must be sought out and flushed out. As the organisation is destabilised, other measures come in. Extremism is itself a symptom of an underlying disease; destroying one terrorist group would only spawn another with a similar cause, as seen in the rise of Jamaah Islamiyah after the end of Darul Islam and Komando Jihad. Extremism is ultimately a set of ideology spawned by a set of inferences drawn from observed events. Islamist propagandists can take advantage of widespread poverty by blaming a target group and then offering amelioration and vengeance through a perverted Quran. These same propagandists can also capitalise on a person's spiritual journey in a non-spiritual world, by offering hollow advice that turns the target towards the desired path. The truth does not matter to the individual; only what the person sees is true. To eliminate extremism at the source, we must target the root causes of extremism. It could mean drawing up social welfare programs, reviewing foreign and local policies, or simply correcting false perceptions through providing accurate information. Counterideological work would be especially crucial in the shadow of al-Qaeda, as Muslim scholars strive to expose the flaws in Islamist propaganda to prevent people from being led astray. Once the roots of extremism have been identified, the boil of terror can be safely lanced and treated.
Attempting to expose extremism by replying with its twisted reproduction would only encourage further conflict. Confronting extremism requires a concerted, sustained effort by the world community. It must first recognise extremism for what it is: a group that represents the fringes of a body that has adopted a set of umbrella beliefs. Then, the peoples of the world must cooperate and communicate with each other, building cornerstones of trust and acceptance. With this cooperation, the cause of extremism can be properly determined and addressed. Without the cause, the extremists have lost their justifications, and their ideology collapses. Perhaps, one day, we shall see the end of the War on Terror. But it must begin from the heart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
